“Theater owners have the right to show whatever the hell they want on their screens.”
The ticket is viewed as a contract. The agreement implicit in this contract is that in exchange for the price of two DVD rentals and your promise not to bring in any food or drink that he didn’t sell you, the theater owner will let you sit in an uncomfortable chair inside a large, dark, poorly air-conditioned, sticky-floored room with 200 obnoxious, inconsiderate strangers and watch a movie on a torn screen with a horrible sound system. (Heck, for only an additional $15 you can eat a handful of styrofoam coated in artificial butter-flavored grease and drink a flat, watered-down beverage!)
The only real work the theater-owner has to do is make sure the movie starts at the time agreed to in the contract, a time clearly stated in the theater’s advertising.
To start the movie at a different time, say the time it takes to show a number of large-screen advertisements for cars or colas, is at best misleading. At worst it’s fraud, which, as I understand it, is the point of the suit.
Additionally, I think comparing product advertisements to previews is specious. Previews of coming attractions have been a part of the movie-going experience since the advent of “talkies”. Chevy ads haven’t.
I guess I’m most disgusted that I was born too late to see cartoons running before features, but right on time to see TV ads doing it. Mass entertainment just isn’t fun any more…
[continuing dwc’s sarcasm]
Yeah, it really sucks that they make you clock out to go to the can, too, right?